ORDER:- This revision is preferred against the order of V Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Chennai, made in I.A.No.3 of 2002 in O.S.No.5887 of 1999 dated 9.4.2002 holding that Madras Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the plaintiff Corporation-National Small Industries Corporation Limited. 2. The first defendant M/s.Kalyan Polymer Products approached the plaintiff corporation in August 1990 for procuring two items of machinery for using them in its business. The second defendant was the managing partner of D-1-firm. On consideration of the particulars furnished and other enquiries, the plaintiff offered to make available two items of machinery on hire purchase basis on prescribed terms and conditions. Accordingly, the machineries were delivered to the defendants by the suppliers on 25.7.1991. With regard to supply of machinery, the first defendant had executed two memorandum of agreements as detailed in para.11 of the plaint. In security for the loans, D-5 has executed guarantee deed dated 18.6.1991. On 25.3.1991, D-1 firm was altered by induction of D-4 as the partner. Thus, all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to meet the liabilities of the first defendant to the plaintiff under the agreements. Since the defendants have not adhered to the repayment schedule, the machineries were re-possessed. The machineries were sold in the public auction and the sale proceeds have been adjusted towards the amount due from the defendants. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the balance amount with further interest up to the date of realisation. Hence, the plaintiff corporation has filed the suit for a sum of Rs.8,31,501 plus interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. Denying the averments in the plaint, the second defendant has filed the written statement inter alia raising objection regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Court at Madras. According to the second defendant, the Madras Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit is also barred by limitation. Defendants 3 and 4 have filed the written statement contending that a fraud was played on them and also set up limitation as defence. D-5- Guarantor has filed the written statement denying her being a guarantor to the transaction. D-5 has denied her liability and also set forth the defence of “want of territorial jurisdiction”. 4. Defendants 3 and 4 have filed the written statement contending that a fraud was played on them and also set up limitation as defence. D-5- Guarantor has filed the written statement denying her being a guarantor to the transaction. D-5 has denied her liability and also set forth the defence of “want of territorial jurisdiction”. 4. On the pleadings, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court-V has framed as many as 7 issues including the issue regarding territorial jurisdiction of Madras Court to try the case. Issue No.6 relating to the question of territorial jurisdiction was taken up as the preliminary issue. No oral evidence was adduced by both parties. Exs.A-1 and A-2 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. No document has been marked on the defendants, side. 5. Upon consideration of the pleadings, documents and the contentions of both parties, the learned Judge has held that part of cause of action has arisen in Madras and that Madras Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Pointing out that the parties have subjected themselves to the jurisdiction at Madras and the amount payable is only at Madras, the lower Court has pointed that both Madras and Ernakulam Courts have jurisdiction. Referring to the Clause 9 in Ex.A-2, the lower Court has held that in case any dispute or difference arisen between the parties, the Courts at Madras alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction and further held that the suit is maintainable in the Courts at Madras. 6. Aggrieved over that order, defendants 2 and 5 have preferred this revision. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that the lower Court erred in finding that the Courts at Madras has jurisdiction to try the suit. Submitting that the defendants can carry on business only at Cochin and that when the documents have been executed only at Ernakulam, only the Courts at Ernakulam could have jurisdiction and the Court at Madras has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is further submitted that any agreement between the parties ousting the jurisdiction of the appropriate Court is not valid and Clause 9 in Ex.A-2 could have no binding effect. It is further submitted that the plaint ought to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. 7. It is further submitted that any agreement between the parties ousting the jurisdiction of the appropriate Court is not valid and Clause 9 in Ex.A-2 could have no binding effect. It is further submitted that the plaint ought to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. 7. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court to Clause 9 of agreement and the clause in the Deed of Guarantee, where the parties have agreed to subject themselves to the Madras jurisdiction. Submitting that when part of cause of action arisen in Madras and when two Courts have jurisdiction, the parties agreeing to subject themselves to jurisdiction at Madras is perfectly valid. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company, (1991)4 S.C.C. 270 ; (ii) Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Limited v. Rama Mishra,(2002)9 S.C.C. 613; (iii) Hanil Era Textiles Limited v. Puromatic Filters Private Limited, (2004)4 S.C.C. 671 ; (iv) New Moga Transport Company v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others, (2004)4 S.C.C. 677 . 8. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, impugned order and other materials on record, the points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether the defendants are right in contending that the suit ought to have been filed only in the Court at Ernakulam? (ii) Whether the lower Court was right in finding that cause of action arose partly at Madras and that Madras Court has jurisdiction to try the suit? 9. The first defendant- Kalyan Polymer Products, is a partnership firm carrying on business in Hospital Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-11. Pursuant to the request from the first defendant - Kalyan Polymer Products, the plaintiff corporation placed orders for two items of machinery which were delivered to the first defendant on 25.7.1991. The hire purchase price was Rs.8,71,635 and Rs.41,164 with subsequent interest at the rate of 16% per annum. The first instalment was due on 1.8.1992 and the last instalment was due on 1.8.1998. Since the defendants have not complied with the repayment schedule, the plaintiff corporation had repossessed machineries given on hire. The machineries were sold in public auction and the sale proceeds were adjusted towards the amount due. The first instalment was due on 1.8.1992 and the last instalment was due on 1.8.1998. Since the defendants have not complied with the repayment schedule, the plaintiff corporation had repossessed machineries given on hire. The machineries were sold in public auction and the sale proceeds were adjusted towards the amount due. For recovery of the balance amount due, the suit has been filed on the basis of Ex.A-1agreement and on the date of guarantee executed by D-5. Exs.A-1 and A-2 agreements were executed before the Notary at Ernakulam. The witnesses to the agreements are also form Cochin. Similarly, the Deed of Guarantee was also executed on 18.6.1991 at Ernakulam. Pointing out that the agreements and the Deed of Guarantee have been executed at Ernakulam, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 2 and 5 has submitted that since the documents have been executed at Ernakulam and the adhesive stamps affixed at Ernakulam, only the Court at Ernakulam could have the jurisdiction and the Court at Madras has no jurisdiction. It is also submitted that Exs.A-1 and 2 have been signed before the Notary Public at Ernakulam and therefore, the suit is maintainable only at Ernakulam. 10. Sec.20 of C.P.C is the general section covering all personal actions relating to persons or movable property; the suit shall be instituted in a Court where: (a) the defendant actually resides or carries on business, etc., or (b) any of the defendants (where there are more than one) actually resides and c and either the leave of the Court has been taken or the other defendants acquiesce, or (c) the cause of action or a part of it arises. Under Clause ‘c’ all classes of suits can be instituted where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. 11. ‘Cause of action’ means, the bundle of fact, which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. ‘Cause of action’ consists of bundle of facts which give cause to enforce the legal injury for redress in a Court of law. ‘Cause of action’ means every fact which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to judgment of the Court. East Asia Shipping Company Limited v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Private Limited, (1996)3 S.C.C. 443 . 12. ‘Cause of action’ means every fact which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to judgment of the Court. East Asia Shipping Company Limited v. Nav Bharat Enterprises Private Limited, (1996)3 S.C.C. 443 . 12. The expression "cause of action" means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove in order to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. Whether any part of cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of a Court would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In an action based on the contract, it is not merely the place where the document was executed but also the place of acceptance of the contract and the place of payment of dues and such other aspects form part of cause of action. 13. In Arthur Butler and Company Limited v. District Board of Gaya,A.I.R. 1947 Pat. 34, wherein, the Patna High Court held: "It is not every step taken in the completion of a contract that determines the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a suit based on the contract. The mere making of an offer is not a part of the cause of action for a suit based on a contract and the suit cannot be brought at the place where the offer originated when the offer was accepted within the jurisdiction of another Court." 14. In this case, the suit for recovery of money is based on the agreements and Deed of guarantee. Few bundle of facts have arisen in the places: (i) place of execution of the agreements and deed of guarantee Ernakulam. (ii) place of acceptance of the contract - Madras. (iii) payment of the instalment due - Madras. (iv) Right of the plaintiff corporation to seize the machinery - Madras. (v) Result of breach and such other aspects - Madras. 15. Thus, part of cause of action has arisen at Ernakulam and also at Madras. It may be, that the defendants may be residing or voluntarily carrying on business in Ernakulam. Equally so, the agreement and the Deed of Guarantee were executed in Ernakulam. The plaintiff corporation has its Head Office at Delhi and the Regional Office at Anna Salai, Madras. Thus, part of cause of action has arisen at Ernakulam and also at Madras. It may be, that the defendants may be residing or voluntarily carrying on business in Ernakulam. Equally so, the agreement and the Deed of Guarantee were executed in Ernakulam. The plaintiff corporation has its Head Office at Delhi and the Regional Office at Anna Salai, Madras. The instalment due amount is payable by the hirer only at Madras as is clear from the following terms and conditions of the agreement. "the hirer hereby agrees and undertakes to pay to the owner at the Head Office of the owner situated near Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi-20. Its Regional Office situated at 615 Anna Salai, Madras or at such other place or places as may be so directed by the owner in that behalf from time to time (Rs.91, 635)". 16. As per the terms of the hire purchase agreement, the owner is the plaintiff corporation, who has its regional office at Madras. In the event of default, the plaintiff Corporation/Owner has the right to repossess the vehicle and the determination of the hiring. Thus, the regional Office at Madras and thereby a part of cause of action had arisen at Madras. In the event of dispute or difference arising between the parties, only the Court at Madras shall have exclusive jurisdiction. In Clause 9 of the agreement, the parties have clearly agreed: "In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the parties relating to the construction, meaning and effect or performance or any other matter under these presents the Court at Madras alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction." The hirer has undertaken to pay the amount at Madras branch. The parties have agreed to subject themselves to the jurisdiction at Madras. Since part of cause of action has arisen at Madras and the suit filed at Madras is maintainable. 17. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff has submitted that the contract has been executed at Madras and that the Madras Court has jurisdiction. The parties have agreed to subject themselves to the jurisdiction at Madras. Since part of cause of action has arisen at Madras and the suit filed at Madras is maintainable. 17. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff has submitted that the contract has been executed at Madras and that the Madras Court has jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in M/s.Dhanda- pani Cements Private Limited, Tiruchirapalli v. Binny Engineering Limited, Chennai, (2003)3 M.L.J. 663 , wherein it has been held: "For the purpose of jurisdiction to entertain a suit based on contract, the place of acceptance is the place of making the contract and that gives rise to the cause of action". In this case, place of acceptance of contract is undoubtedly at Madras- Regional Office of the plaintiff’s Corporation. 18. As rightly held by the lower Court, part of cause of action has arisen both at Madras and at Ernakulam. It cannot be contended that no part of cause of action has arisen at Madras. When two or more Courts have jurisdiction to try the suit, parties can by agreement choose any one of such Court for adjudication of their dispute. In this case, when the cause of action has arisen both at Ernakulam and at Madras, the agreement of the parties subjecting themselves to the jurisdiction at Madras is valid. 19. We may usefully refer to the decision reported in Shriram City Union Finance Corporation Limited v. Rama Mishra,(2002)9 S.C.C. 613, wherein it has been held: "In other words, if one or more Courts have the jurisdiction to try any suit, it is open for the parties to choose any one of the two competent Courts to decide their disputes. In case parties under their own agreement expressly agree that their dispute shall be tried by only one of them then the parties can only file the suit in that Court alone to which they have so agreed. In the present case, through Clause 34 of the agreement, the parties have bound themselves that any matter arising between them under the said contract, it is the Courts in Calcutta alone which will have jurisdiction. Once parties bound themselves as such, it is not open for them to choose a different jurisdiction as in the present case by filing the suit at Bhubaneshwar. Once parties bound themselves as such, it is not open for them to choose a different jurisdiction as in the present case by filing the suit at Bhubaneshwar. Such a suit would be in violation of the said agreement. Therefore, the suit filed by the respondent in the Civil Court at Bhubaneshwar would not be valid, in view of the said agreement." 20. It has been held in Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Tropical Agro Systems Private Limited and another, (1991)4 S.C.C. 270 : “Choice of forum under, can be limited by incorporating exclusion clause under the agreement. But agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on a place it does not lie otherwise.” 21. Similar view taken in M/s Angile Insulations v. M/s Davy Ashmore India Limited and another,A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1766, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that “where the parties to contract agreeing to vest jurisdiction in one such Court, is not hit by Sec.23 or Sec.28 of the Contract Act”. In view of the well settled position that the parties can choose any one of such Court for adjudication of their dispute, the contention raised by the revision petitioner that the suit ought to have been filed at Ernakulam has no force. 22. The lower Court has rightly found that part of cause of action has arisen at Madras and that parties have validly agreed to subject themselves to one such Courts for adjudication of their dispute and that the suit filed at Madras is maintainable. The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity warranting interference. This revision has no merits and is bound to fail. 23. Therefore, the judgment of the V Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.3 of 2002 in O.S.No.5887 of 1999 dated 9.4.2002 is confirmed and this revision petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.15623 of 2002 is also dismissed.